On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
No point in doing that.
There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.
Half the population isnt.
Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.
Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.
Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,
Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold
at a lower frame rate.
Eyes don't have a frame rate.
The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.
No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
Precisely what I said, with a different name.
Easily measured.
Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it could see someone's lights.
Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?
They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.
Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?
Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.
No, I see what's really there.
No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't see
either.
I see more than you do.
And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.
I prefer to see reality than something your brain made up.
Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?
Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.
It's the same thing entirely. A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better. They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes can't.
If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as
good as mine.
Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.
We see what is really there, you don't.
Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.
But they are flickering.
But its better not to see that. You're a freak.
It is better to see what is really there.
Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.
they should be made properly. A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs) decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.
What other things are you missing in life?
None with the flicker fusion threshold.
Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing. Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've changed.
In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.
Only the cheap ones **** me off. There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.
Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.
I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.
I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.
You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,
Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.
Well they must have done something, because they looked way less flickery than a cheap 60Hz monitor.
they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.
Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.
What's the actual name for it? Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen burn.